Guest Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 When I was a teenager, there was a crusty old blind man that lived down our street, all the kids called him Ray Charles, but his real name was Gus. Gus had been blind his entire life and we thought that was why he was so bitter. One day my mom made me take some cookies down to him, I went reluctantly, hoping he was not home, but since he was all alone and had nowhere to go and no real life, he was sitting in his garage as I rode up on my stingray. "Who's there" he barked as I approached, "It's me from down the street", I said, "my mom made you some cookies". This seemed to soften his disposition some and he invited me to stay a spell and talk with him. We did some chit-chat about the weather and the neighborhood and I asked him what it was like to be blind(?) "Oh it ain't so bad he said, you don't have to believe in a bunch of useless things", I said "like what?" He said, "like Elephants!" "Elephants" I said, "why don't you believe in elephants?" "Well, for one I ain't never seen one" he said proudly, I said "that's because you're blind". Then he said "have YOU ever seen one?", I said "no, not live, but I have seen one on TV", then he said "How do you know it's real? there are fake and made up things on TV" Trying to outsmart him, I said "I had seen casts of their foot prints" "Well those could be fake, unless you saw one make them" he retorted "Ok, I said, I have heard recordings of the sounds they make" "Those could be fake too!" he stated I thought for a minute and said that "I knew people who had seen one" "They could be lying" he said "Well they took pictures of one", I said And he came back with "Photos can be faked" I said "you could read about them on the computer" "I don't read much", he said It was then it hit me that this guy just wanted to argue, So I hopped back on my bike and gave him the finger as I rode away.. Seems like there are blind people just about everywhere isn't there...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I've never had the opportunity to view a great white shark anywhere, wild or captivity. That does not mean that I, for one millisecond, doubt their existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Atoms, you can't see them and never trust them because they make up everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 21, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2014 Mythos, plussed. dmaker, that story was not about sharks or even elephants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 http://www.sasquatchdatabase.com/(S(naszfiyo34yse5ubvnavlgym))/SearchResult.aspx?i_incident_id=992565 I believe a lot of sighting reports, and do not subscribe to the seemingly prevalent "only a few percent are legit theory". However, a lot of red flags in this very breif statement. "several" "unusual" encounters. Being willing to be video interviewed. Providing casts AND hair. This is one I personally would not invest in. Hiflier, you are starting to creep me out with your obsession on this report, I guess appropriate for the coming Halloween! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) You don't have to be certifiable to see or not see something that is there in plain sight. If these creatures were there they would be leaving a large proverbial footprint on their environment and that isn't happening, at least it seems that way from what I've read so far. I keep thinking back to the stories of the conquistodors, it depends on what version you read whether it occurred with South American Natives or Australian Aborigines, but the primitive tribes on those continents didn't acknowledge the existence of those large sailing ships when they first approached their lands. Some of the sailors thought the natives didn't see them because they had no frame of reference for a large boat in their past experience upon first contact. I'm not sure how researchers determined this so many centuries after the fact, but they concluded that unless the object was a recognizable threat to the natives it simply wasn't acknowledged because their focus in life was on survival. They didn't have the luxury of time or energy to be curious about novel things. Aren't we fortunate that we live in an age and place where we can afford to explore these kinds of topics like bigfoot? I doubt the West Africans are concerned about bigfoot right now. Whether you are a proponent or a skeptic here on the forum you should count yourself lucky that there are numerous venues available where you can question and reflect upon a topic that isn't crucial to our survival. It's called having fun, if it isn't fun then why do it? Edited October 21, 2014 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Then why don't you just post it hiflier ? You have no room to talk seeing how you constantly go after DWA. I don't think dmaker needs your help. Lack of scientific proof means nothing to those of us who have seen them. So what dmaker thinks means nothing to us either.Then there are people who know someone who has seen one and believe them because they know the person and know the person is honest. Of which I believe DWA has mentioned before, he knows such a person and if 1 person has seen one then so have other's. To just ignore this fact or think everyone is hullucinating, making crap up, or seeing some other animal is ridiculous. It may be possible, sheri, that I missed this report because yeah, I get this feeling I'm being stalked with him (it's even worse than dmaker and Inc1, really), and just have him on Ignore (which I take off from time to time for my own entertainment). Some people need to spend less time obsessing over the wrong stuff, and wonder why so many people are insisting they saw something the society insists you are crazy if you saw, and how the big picture of the reports is that a world-class primatologist-ecologist-novelist wrote them all (and if you contest this, see, you don't read them, and those of us who do, know that). I believe a lot of sighting reports, and do not subscribe to the seemingly prevalent "only a few percent are legit theory". However, a lot of red flags in this very breif statement. "several" "unusual" encounters. Being willing to be video interviewed. Providing casts AND hair. This is one I personally would not invest in. Hiflier, you are starting to creep me out with your obsession on this report, I guess appropriate for the coming Halloween! Creepout, cubed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) I will just interject to say that the BFRO's sighting report/follow-up methods give a body much more greater access to details. Of course, the content is only as good as the witnesses' willingness to share details, and the investigator's skill in pursuing the information. Results vary, to say the least. This is what you can expect when you leave it to amateurs to do this work (and I don't mean to condescend in that description...they are doing good work that no sanctioned scientific organization deigns to acknowledge as being an open question. So, good on them). Here's what I think DWA is saying, because I say it a lot too: Parsing any one report is a fool's errand, and will guarantee you will draw inaccurate conclusions. The data set is much, much larger. There are types of reports that you can lump into broad categories (i.e., nighttime vs. daytime, military vs. civilian, law enforcement sightings, etc.) but even those have to be read in the greater context. There is no way to do this without reading LOTS of reports, with an eye for detail. For starters, I'd suggest reading the new BFRO reports daily. Do that for a few years. Look back at other reports from the same areas. Draw your own conclusions, and share them. Nobody here is going to get (I don't think) a "go away" response from anyone else who has read them if you invest that time. We all respect diligence and hard work. You've got to do more than dip your toe in this, and I think I can presume to say DWA would tell you that too. Edited October 21, 2014 by WSA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 You don't have to be certifiable to see or not see something that is there in plain sight. If these creatures were there they would be leaving a large proverbial footprint on their environment and that isn't happening, at least it seems that way from what I've read so far. Actually, it's that we don't know what all the signs look like; and of footprints - literal, not proverbial - there are definitely many, the provenance of way too many of which just doesn't look human. The point has also been made that the copious evidence of plant feeding left by tropical apes owes itself to the types of plants that exist in the tropics, that promote feeding on different parts than temperate plants (pithy vs. woody stems, for example). Feeding evidence left by sasquatch actually appears more than abundant. It's just that (1) evidence of plant feeding will be similar to that left by other NA plant feeders and (2) evidence of meat eating with very anomalous aspects - frequently relating to something that appears to have great strength, and hands - isn't being reviewed by the mainstream. Aren't we fortunate that we live in an age where we can afford to explore these kinds of topics like bigfoot? I doubt the West Africans are concerned about bigfoot right now. Whether you are a proponent or a skeptic here on the forum you should count yourself lucky that there are numerous venues available where you can question and reflect upon a topic that isn't crucial to our survival. It's called having fun, if it isn't fun then why do it? And, well, amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I will just interject to say that the BFRO's sighting report/follow-up methods give a body much more greater access to details. Of course, the content is only as good as the witnesses' willingness to share details, and the investigator's skill in pursuing the information. Results vary, to say the least. This is what you can expect when you leave it to amateurs to do this work (and I don't mean to condescend in that description...they are doing good work that no sanctioned scientific organization deigns to acknowledge as being an open question. So, good on them). Here's what I think DWA is saying, because I say it a lot too: Parsing any one report is a fool's errand, and will guarantee you will draw inaccurate conclusions. The data set is much, much larger. There are types of reports that you can lump into broad categories (i.e., nighttime vs. daytime, military vs. civilian, law enforcement sightings, etc.) but even those have to be read in the greater context. There is no way to do this without reading LOTS of reports, with an eye for detail. For starters, I'd suggest reading the new BFRO reports daily. Do that for a few years. Look back at other reports from the same areas. Draw your own conclusions, and share them. Nobody here is going to get (I don't think) a "go away" response from anyone else who has read them if you invest that time. We all respect diligence and hard work. You've got to do more than dip your toe in this, and I think I can presume to say DWA would tell you that too. All that would change are the precise words. The precise thoughts: they're ^^here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Hello 1980squatch and DWA, Hiflier, you are starting to creep me out with your obsession on this report, I guess appropriate for the coming Halloween! Creepout, cubed. But it ISN'T just THAT report! This is why I wanted you, DWA, to vet it. You'll see what I mean soon. I can understand 1980squatch's reaction; but your's DWA is more symptomatic of how you look at stuff. You don't seem to reach below the surface much. You're gonna like the new thread. It will hopefully teach you how to get to the next level of unblinded discernment. I'm certainly not obsessed with that report or you (sorry) but put you and the report in the same room? It shows how well(little) you honestly look at this stuff. 'Nuff said. See ya 'round. BTW, this isn't about me. I'm doing things this way for maximum effect. I want folks to pay attention to what's coming. It's pretty important. Edited October 21, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 How do you know how DWA reads report's ? Your comment on that is so frigging arrogant it's sickening. Yes , this is about you. You made it about you. You like to play games with people which is creepy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) One thing one can readily tell around here, sheri, is who doesn't read them. Sooner or later, going I-word with them just, well, clears up the page for intelligent commentary. Edited October 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, It's more in the area of who doesn't follow up. @sheri, It may be possible, sheri, that I missed this report..... Ergo, no comment. Edited October 21, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 1 report ? really I don't care if he missed 30 reports, even 50 or 100 . There are thousands of report's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts